On 4/17/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, Anton, > > On 4/17/06, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No, we don't need all those branches. Only the branch for Harmony. > > Only for those cases when we DO know that we have a deviation. > > IMHO, I prefer to have all tests passing on RI (which verify tests > > itself) and on Harmony (which verifies Harmony). > > > > > But there ARE some different behaviours between Harmony and RI. > How could our test case show or these differences if all are passed both on > RI and Harmony? > I think our test cases should show these differences instead of hiding them. > > Failures should > > indicate something wrong with tests or with Harmony code. There should > > be no other failures, I think. > > > Yes. So I think all test cases could pass on Harmony, but on RI :-) > Failures on RI mean RI has different understanding or behaviours compared to > Harmony criteria, or in other words, they're wrong behaviour according to > Harmony criteria.
Well, not completely agree. I RI has BUG, I agree to have corresponding Harmony test failing. However do you think that different exception messges say is a good reason to have failures? I don't think so. Just a minor differemce which can be 'formally documented' by using isHarmony() is tests. Wishes, -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
